📰 India, Sri Lanka to expedite projects
Wickremesinghe meets Kovind, Modi, Sushma; discusses joint ventures, bilateral issues
•Expediting decisions on joint projects and “solving the problems that have emerged” was at the top of the agenda as Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe met Prime Minister Narendra Modi, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and President Ram Nath Kovind during his two-day visit to Delhi, officials on both sides highlighted here.
•Among the projects discussed in particular were the plans for India to develop the Trincomalee harbour, including the Oil Tank farms project, as well as the Indian bid to lease and manage the Mattala airport in Hambantota.
•“Our focus was on implementation of all the decisions taken so far,” Sri Lankan High Commissioner Chithranganie Wagishwara told The Hindu at the end of Mr. Wickremesinghe’s visit on Friday.
•“Both Prime Ministers and the delegations spent much of their discussions on reviewing what has been done, what needs to be done and what needs to be speeded up,” she added.
•In a similar statement, the External Affairs Ministry said on Thursday that Mr. Modi and Mr. Wickremesinghe had discussed the partnership. “I can only share with you that all bilateral issues were discussed. India is an important partner of Sri Lanka. We have a lot of development projects which are going on in Sri Lanka,” MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar told presspersons.
•The emphasis on speeding up joint ventures comes after months where there has been no movement on many of the pending decisions on joint ventures. Officials were hopeful that the Trinco Oil Farm project, that involves the Indian Oil Corporation taking over more than 70 storage tanks would have been sealed in April, when Mr. Wickremesinghe previously visited, but a flash strike by oil company employees put off any announcement.
•In a statement issued in Sinhala on Thursday, the Sri Lankan government said that Mr. Wickremesinghe “is always prepared to take all efforts to accelerate all the Sri Lankan-Indian joint venture projects” and “expressed his confidence on the possibility of solving the problems that have emerged at present,” along with President Sirisena. However, the statement did not comment on the nature of the problems.
📰 Doval for cooperation on cybersecurity
‘Faster exchange of information key’
•National Security Adviser Ajit Doval on Friday said all stakeholders, including States and the private sector, need to cooperate to mitigate the negative effects of cyberspace, especially amid emergence of technologies such as artificial intelligence and internet of things.
•“The security agencies of geographies also need to have better cooperation and they should have very specific cybersecurity structure which are able to do faster exchange of information, identify the defaulters, to see against them give support to law enforcement agencies so that the cybernorms and laws are adhered to,” Mr. Doval said at the GCCS 2017.
Artificial intelligence
•He warned that the situation would get more complex as “we are entering into domain of artificial intelligence, machine learning, IoTs, robotics… are going to create and compound these problems manifold.”
•“So we have got to... think of the structures, systems, methodologies, inter-operability, governmental support, multilateral and bilateral cooperation, which will be able to cope,” he said.
•Mr. Doval, however, added, “We may not be able to completely wipe off this negative side, but at least can do a lot to mitigate them.”
•“Never before has there been any change which is so wide in its expanse, and which can affect the lives of so many people... [but] if it provides you global connectivity, it also provides global connectivity to terrorists and criminals. It also provides connectivity to the people who want to subvert the minds and hearts of young generation and take them to a certain path of thinking,” Mr. Doval said.
📰 Plea contests jury trial in Parsi special courts
SC to hear case of 33-year-old woman
•Half a century after the case of a young Parsi war veteran, Commander K.M. Nanavati, sounded the death knell for the jury system in India, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up the case of a Parsi woman, who has challenged the jury system still followed by her community’s special matrimonial courts as a violation of her fundamental right to life and dignity.
•A Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy sought the view of the Centre on a petition filed by 33-year-old Naomi Sam Irani of Panchgani in Maharashtra against the pre-Independence Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, which provides an opportunity for the “local Parsi people” to voice their opinion as jury on the family and marital affairs of an estranged couple.
•The Centre has to respond on the petition when the case comes up for hearing next week.
•The counsel for Ms. Irani referred to how the apex court intervened on the behalf of Muslim women to strike down triple talaq as a practice in violation of their fundamental rights of life and dignity.
•Ms. Irani argued that involving the local populace in an intensely private dispute is a gross violation of her fundamental right to privacy.
Pre-independence era
•The Act under challenge has been enacted in the pre-independence era, which also pre-dates the abolishment of the jury system in the jurisprudence of the country. Notwithstanding this, the practice of appointing delegates to aid in adjudication of cases arising under the act, and giving the local Parsis an opportunity of expressing their opinion in a matter which is clearly in the realm of privacy between the parties continues to find favour in law, Ms. Irani argued.
•She said though the Parliament had enacted the Family Courts Act in 1984, the Parsi community is compelled to take their matrimonial disputes to the special courts, namely Parsi Chief Matrimonial Courts and the Parsi District Matrimonial Courts, established under the 1936 Act. Even then, she said, the 1936 Act does not allow a woman the freedom to file her divorce case in the Parsi matrimonial court in her neighbourhood.
📰 Rajnath to chair meet on Centre-State ties
Council to discuss Punchhi Commission recommendations
•Home Minister Rajnath Singh will chair a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Inter-State Council (ISC) on Saturday to discuss the recommendations made by the Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations.
•Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, along with Chief Ministers Amarinder Singh of Punjab, Manik Sarkar of Tripura, Naveen Patnaik of Odisha and Raman Singh of Chhattisgarh, would be present.
•The Punchhi Commission, notified in 2005, submitted its report in 2010. Its recommendations pertaining to national security, communal harmony, Centre-State financial relations and planning are expected to be discussed.
•The Commission, in its report, had said that ‘National Security’ as a subject was not specifically listed in any of the three Lists: the Union, the State or the Concurrent List. “The subject of Security under the Article 352 and under the Emergency Provisions in Part XVIII of the Constitution has been assigned to the Union Government. Though it is an overriding executive power of the Union, in Constitutional practice, however, ‘Security’ is a subject in which the States and the Union have a common interest and are expected to act in a coordinated manner,” the report had said.
•The Commission also said that in case of communal riots, which has a potential of causing widespread violence within a territory, “the use of Article 355 may be in order.”
•“A clarificatory line in this regard, if required, may be inserted making the provision explicitly clear that the Centre can depute paramilitary forces to such trouble spots in exceptional circumstances even if a request from the State government is not received. The aim has to be to ensure quick control of the situation, bring it back to normal, hand over the area to the local administration as quickly as possible and then withdraw the Central forces,” the Commission said.
📰 No fresh polls if NOTA votes exceed candidates’
Supreme Court rejects PIL petition, says elections are costly in the country
•“Holding elections in our country costs money,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said, while rejecting a public interest litigation petition suggesting fresh elections whenever the public chose overwhelmingly the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option.
•Supreme Court advocate Ashiwni Upadhyay said that if NOTA got the highest number of votes, it would amount to an expression of public dissatisfaction with the candidates in the fray.
•If this happened, the result should have to be nullified by the Election Commission.
•In response, a three-judge Bench, led by the Chief Justice, gave Mr. Upadhyay an illustration.
•“Let us say the highest percentage of votes polled by a candidate is 40 and the rest goes to NOTA. Does this mean we subject this candidate to another election,” Chief Justice Misra asked.
•“So, this means there should be an election each time a candidate gets less than 51% of the votes polled ... We cannot say such things. We will not be doing our duty and will be crossing a constitutional barricade,” the Chief Justice said.
•The court said a voter had the right to express his dissent by staying at home.
•Mr. Upadhyay has decided to withdraw his petition from the court. He may now approach the Election Commission.
•His petition had even sought a ban on the parties and their candidates who failed to NOTA in the first election from contesting the fresh polls.
📰 S&P stands pat on its rating
Belies expectations of an upgrade by retaining India at BBB- with outlook ‘stable’
•Standard & Poor’s (S&P) retained its BBB- rating for India’s sovereign with a ‘stable’ outlook on Friday, belying expectations that it may take a cue from rival Moody’s, which last week upgraded the country’s credit rating for the first time in 13 years.
•S&P cited India’s low per capita income, the sizeable fiscal deficit and high general government debt as factors that continue to weigh down the country’s credit profile and reiterated its stable outlook — indicating that the rating is unlikely to see a change in the near future. A BBB- rating denotes the lowest investment grade rating for India’s sovereign debt.
•Despite one-off factors like demonetisation and the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax denting growth for two quarters, S&P expects India’s economy to grow robustly over the two-year period from 2018-20 with foreign exchange reserves rising further.
‘Low wealth levels’
•“Ratings are constrained by India’s low wealth levels, measured by GDP per capita, which we estimate at close to $2,000 in 2017, the lowest of all investment-grade sovereigns that we rate,” S&P Global Ratings said in a statement, explaining its rationale for the rating. “That said, India’s GDP growth rate is among the fastest of all investment-grade sovereigns, and we expect real GDP to average 7.6% over 2017-2020.”
•By contrast, Moody’s had raised India’s sovereign rating by one notch, citing the country’s high growth potential compared with similarly rated peers and economic and institutional reforms that had been undertaken or were in the pipeline.
•“This is clearly a conservative call wherein S&P would like to see the results of the reforms initiated before a ratings revision while Moody’s has taken the call based on the reforms initiated,” said Ranen Banerjee, partner (public finance and economics) at PwC India.
‘Electoral gains’
•S&P said the government’s reform agenda could be bolstered by electoral gains for the ruling coaliton.
•“The ruling party continues to consolidate its power at the State level and, despite obstacles to the implementation of reform, strong growth is likely to continue,” S&P noted, adding that it expects Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP-led coalition to make further electoral gains. These gains could help the government overcome resistance to legislative reforms in the Rajya Sabha, where the NDA is still in a minority, S&P said.
•Taking note of the reforms that have been pushed through in recent years to address ‘long-standing impediments to the country’s growth’ such as GST, the Bankruptcy Code and a framework for resolving bad loans while recapitalising state-owned banks, S&P also referred to the government’s focus on improving the ease of doing business as a positive for the investment climate. “However, confidence and GDP growth in 2017 appear to have been hit by the sudden demonetisation exercise in late 2016… The July 1, 2017, introduction of the GST, which combines the central, state, and local-level indirect taxes into one, has also led to some one-off teething problems that have dampened growth,” S&P pointed out, adding that the medium-term growth outlook remained favourable.
•“Nevertheless, in the medium term, we anticipate that growth will be supported by the planned recapitalisation of state-owned banks, which is likely to spur on new lending within the economy. Public-sector-led infrastructure investment, notably in the road sector, will also stimulate economic activity, while private consumption will remain robust. The removal of barriers to domestic trade tied to the imposition of GST should also support GDP growth,” S&P underlined.
•Soumya Kanti Ghosh, group chief economic adviser at the State Bank of India, said S&P’s rating action was not unexpected going by history but questioned its comments on India’s per capita income.
•“The argument given by S&P that India has low per capita income which is acting as a detractor from the sovereign rating upgrade, is fallacious as Indonesia which was upgraded seven times between 2002 and 2011 had a low per-capita GDP of $1,066 in 2003 when its credit rating was upgraded and India’s GDP per capita is now $1,709.4,” Mr. Ghosh said.
•While the stable outlook suggests the agency doesn’t expect any change in the rating soon, there could be downward pressures if GDP growth disappointed, if net general government deficits rose significantly or if the political will to maintain India’s reform agenda significantly lost momentum, S&P said.
•The rating agency estimated public sector banks would need a capital infusion of about $30 billion to make large haircuts on loans to viable stressed projects and meet the rising capital requirements under the Basel III norms.
•The bank capitalisation program and the planned ramp-up in public-sector-led infrastructure investments as well as persistent fiscal deficits at the State level would have a bearing on India’s large general government debt and overall weak public finances, S&P said, stressing these continued to constrain India’s ratings.
•“India has a long history of high net general government fiscal deficits (net of liquid assets, deficits averaged over 8% of GDP over the past 20 years and 7% in the past five years). The planned large infrastructure investment program is likely to limit expenditure flexibility, even though the government is likely to be able to tap private sector funds for the construction,” S&P said.
📰 Centre to seek 20,000 MW of solar bids
2,000 MW of wind power auction announced; solar manufacturing EoIs coming
•The government is planning bids for a total of 20,000 MW of solar energy plants projects in this financial year, of which 3,600 MW have already been completed, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy said on Friday.
•The Ministry is planning bids for 30,000 MW of solar projects in 2018-19 and 2019-20, each. In wind energy, the Centre on Friday announced the third wind power auction of 2,000 MW, the largest of its kind in India so far.
•Power and New and Renewable Energy Minister R.K. Singh also said that the government would soon invite expressions of interest for the setting up of end-to-end solar component manufacturing in India of 20 GW capacity. “We need manufacturing in India in solar,” he said. “There is no reason for imports, and so we will encourage manufacturing in India. We are planning a 20 GW auction, but only for those who are willing to manufacture in India. We will invite expressions of interest in the next four or five days.”
•As per the Ministry’s plan, Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) will invite two separate bids for 3,000 MW of solar projects in December 2017 and January 2018 each. NTPC is to invite a bid for 5,000 MW of solar projects in February 2018, and another 6,000 MW will be bid out in March 2018 by SECI and other Central PSUs.
‘50% of 2022 target met’
•In wind energy, the Ministry said it had already received bids for 32 GW of projects, which is more than 50% of the 60 GW target set for 2022. The government is expecting bids for a total of 8-9 GW this year, and 10 GW each in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
•On problems faced by the sector, New and Renewable Energy Secretary Anand Kumar said. “One demand had to do with customs duty [being charged] for solar components.” Earlier, they wer exempt. “We have taken this up with the Finance Ministry... and the issue will be fixed in 10 days.”
📰 Sagardhwani retraces historic Indian Ocean expedition routes
Research to look at impact of monsoon and human activity on marine resources
•Marine acoustic research vessel INS Sagardhwani is riding a wave of history that charted the course of oceanographic research in the Indian Ocean.
•The Kochi-based ship, operated by the Navy and equipped with eight scientific laboratories, recently joined an international campaign to revisit the first major interdisciplinary ‘International Indian Ocean Exploration (IIOE)’ undertaken by 13 countries with 46 vessels in the 1960s.
•Indian Naval Ships Kistna and Varuna had taken part in the expedition held under the United Nations. Kistna, a frigate which was converted for ocean surveys for want of a dedicated vessel for the purpose, had conducted 29 cruises carrying scientists from various organisations, including the then fledgling Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), a DRDO laboratory which now owns the state-of-the-art Sagardhwani.
•The massive drive also covered a large part of the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, including the coastal seas. Sagardhwani’s present cruise retraces certain routes followed by Kistna in its mission that lasted till 1965. Between November 17 and 20, Sagardhwani followed the sixth cruise track of Kistna in the southern Bay of Bengal in 1963.
Commemorative trip
•IIOE-2, as the ongoing commemorative expedition is known, is organised by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) under the UN.
•It hopes to furthering the scientific community’s understanding of the Indian Ocean biophysical variability in response to monsoon and human activity. A total of 52 nations are taking part in IIOE-2, carrying out oceanographic research in designated areas in the Indian Ocean.
•IIOE-1 was a watershed event for ocean research in India, NPOL director S. Kedarnath Shenoy said. “Four Indian vessels, including two small trawlers, from Kochi, had taken part in it. But it triggered the formation of several ocean-based research institutions in India like the NIO, NIOT, INCOIS and NCAOR & ocean studies departments in various universities. The event was among the factors instrumental in rechristening the Indian Naval Physical Laboratory in 1968 to NPOL as we are known today.”
•Last week, Mr. Shenoy presided over the commencement of the second edition of IIOE on board Sagardhwani as it was berthed at Port Blair. “The current and future expeditions are important for India thanks to the increasing geostrategic importance of the Andaman and Nicobar islands and the increasing requirement for surveillance of maritime activities in the area,” he said.
•Between now and 2020, the DRDO would be carrying out extensive scientific research along four tracks covered by Kistna in the maiden expedition. Rear Admiral RJ Nadkarni, Chief of Staff of the Southern Naval Command that operates Sagardhwani, said that the Navy and the DRDO (NPOL in particular) had a symbiotic partnership in furthering maritime scientific research.
•“The research carried out by NPOL scientists on Sagardhwani has been immensely useful in enabling a better understanding of our littoral waters as well as the seabed, which are of vital maritime and security interest to India.”
•A monograph on the scientific contributions of Sagardhwani over the past two decades was brought out in August this year, when the ship completed its 200th scientific mission.
📰 World’s smallest tape recorder built from bacteria
Mr. Wang and his team created the microscopic data recorder by taking advantage of CRISPR-Cas, an immune system in many species of bacteria.
•Researchers have converted a natural bacterial immune system into the world’s smallest data recorder, laying the groundwork for a new class of technologies that use bacterial cells for everything from disease diagnosis to environmental monitoring.
•The researchers at the Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) in the US modified an ordinary laboratory strain of the ubiquitous human gut microbe Escherichia coli, enabling the bacteria to not only record their interactions with the environment but also time-stamp the events.
•“Such bacteria, swallowed by a patient, might be able to record the changes they experience through the whole digestive tract, yielding an unprecedented view of previously inaccessible phenomena,” said Harris Wang from the CUMC.
•Other applications could include environmental sensing and basic studies in ecology and microbiology, where bacteria could monitor otherwise invisible changes without disrupting their surroundings, according to the study published in the journal Science.
•Mr. Wang and his team created the microscopic data recorder by taking advantage of CRISPR-Cas, an immune system in many species of bacteria.
•CRISPR-Cas copies snippets of DNA from invading viruses so that subsequent generations of bacteria can repel these pathogens more effectively.
•As a result, the CRISPR locus of the bacterial genome accumulates a chronological record of the bacterial viruses that it and its ancestors have survived. When those same viruses try to infect again, the CRISPR-Cas system can recognise and eliminate them.
•To build their microscopic recorder, the researchers modified a piece of DNA called a plasmid, giving it the ability to create more copies of itself in the bacterial cell in response to an external signal.
•A separate recording plasmid, which drives the recorder and marks time, expresses components of the CRISPR-Cas system.
•In the absence of an external signal, only the recording plasmid is active, and the cell adds copies of a spacer sequence to the CRISPR locus in its genome.
•When an external signal is detected by the cell, the other plasmid is also activated, leading to insertion of its sequences instead.
•The result is a mixture of background sequences that record time and signal sequences that change depending on the cell’s environment.
•The researchers can then examine the bacterial CRISPR locus and use computational tools to read the recording and its timing.
•“Now we are planning to look at various markers that might be altered under changes in natural or disease states, in the gastrointestinal system or elsewhere,” said Mr. Wang.
•Synthetic biologists have previously used CRISPR to store poems, books, and images in DNA, but this is the first time CRISPR has been used to record cellular activity and the timing of those events.
📰 Endgame in Syria
Unless the peace dividend is visible soon, regression to anarchy cannot be ruled out
•The seven-year-old Syrian conflict has recently seen a flurry of political activity toward a possible denouement. Following the defeat of the Islamic State (IS) at Abu Kamal, its last Syrian redoubt, military activities are being framed by the tenuous ceasefire between government-allied forces and motley rebel groups mostly confined to four de-escalation zones. Backed by support from the Russian Air Force, Iranian experts and fighters from Hezbollah militia of Lebanon, the former have an upper hand.
•The rebels, with the solitary exception of Kurdish forces, have been losing ground, with their foreign patrons, mainly the U.S. and the Gulf Cooperation Council states, becoming more equivocal. The antagonists have been inconclusively engaged in the Astana Process, sponsored and guaranteed by Russia, Iran and Turkey, and the U.N.-sponsored Geneva Peace Talks. The conflict has taken a horrific toll: over a third of nearly 19 million Syrians have been displaced, nearly a fifth have sought refuge outside the country, and over 400,000 are dead.
Russia’s role
•Russian President Vladimir Putin has pressed the military advantage in Syria to recently launch the search for a lasting political solution. His summit with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at Sochi, Russia, on November 20 produced the broad outlines of a peace process even as the Syrian leader insisted on foreign non-interference. Following telephonic consultations with his U.S., Saudi, Egyptian and Israeli counterparts, Mr. Putin held a tripartite summit on November 22 with the Presidents of Iran and Turkey. They jointly announced the convening of a Syrian peace congress at Sochi to create a framework for national reconciliation. In tandem with the Russian initiatives, a Saudi--sponsored two-day meeting in Riyadh of over 140 Syrian rebels concluded yesterday with an agreement to field a unified delegation at the Geneva talks on November 28. They reportedly dropped their long-standing demand for the removal of President Assad which could help break the stalemate at the talks.
•However, there are still formidable obstacles. First, the bloodletting and intense foreign involvement have created a bitter legacy to be overcome before meaningful negotiations can commence. Second, entrenched foreign interests often pursue divergent objectives. For instance, while Turkey demands the ouster of Mr. Assad and regards the Kurdish militia as terrorists, Russia and Iran hold opposite stands. Even though Russia and the U.S. have vowed to obliterate the IS, they hold opposite positions on the continuation of Mr. Assad. Similarly, though Israel and Saudi Arabia have their well-known differences, they are both apprehensive about Iranian gains in the Levant. Third, even as a need for a new Syrian Constitution is widely acknowledged, the prescriptions for a future polity range from a continuation of Ba’ath Arab nationalism (aka an Alawite-dominated military-security apparatus) to a Sunni Khilafat, and from a unitary republic to a loose confederation. At a different level, as Syria is the first instance of Russian military intervention abroad since the end of the Cold War, it has provoked speculation about Mr. Putin’s more muscular regional and global agenda. Last but not least, any peace package would necessarily require the injection of huge funds for reconstruction. Unless the peace dividend is visible soon, regression to anarchy cannot be ruled out.
Whiff of optimism
•The best one can realistically hope for is a congruence of major players around the incipient political process, and progressive withdrawal of foreign military presence and interests. Left to themselves, exhausted and pauperised Syrians may come around to let bygones be bygones and create new paradigms for peaceful coexistence. There is some room for guarded optimism: Syrians have an ancient civilisation which has always been multi-ethnic and mostly serene. Further, their bitter experience provides a cautionary lesson. The current stalemate also shows the limits of those calling for regime change by force. Indeed, some of them may be bracing themselves for aftershocks as war-hardened fighters come home from Syria’s killing fields. It may be better to de-escalate than risk Syria becoming a crucible for extremism.
•At the regional level, the endgame in Syria puts paid to a decade of the “Arab Spring” without any tangible gains. It also re-enforces the unshakable Arab faith in conspiracy theories of foreign powers being the ultimate arbiters of their destiny. Ironically, the Syrian conflict will reach its endgame in the centenary year of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the infamous Balfour Declaration. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
A place for India
•By keeping a low profile during the conflict, India has earned wider acceptability across the Syrian social spectrum. In normal times, the annual bilateral trade between the two countries was over half a billion dollars, with India enjoying a large trade surplus. In a post-conflict situation, India has a potential role in institution building and reconstruction. Among the possible initiatives to further our prospects could be extending an invitation to Mr. Assad for a return visit to India, holding a session of the joint commission and an Indian line of credit to finance our exports as well as projects and services.
📰 The China plan — On Myanmar-Bangladesh deal on Rohingya
The devil will be in the detail of the Myanmar-Bangladesh deal on Rohingya repatriation
•The agreement reached between Myanmar and Bangladesh to repatriate Rohingya refugees suggests that the Chinese proposal has found some traction as a solution to the crisis. It has been sealed after a three-month military operation by Myanmar in Rakhine, which resulted in around 600,000 Rohingya fleeing the province to Bangladesh, leading to a humanitarian crisis and a war of words between Dhaka and Naypyidaw. It is against this background that China stepped in with its three-point plan. Earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi travelled to Bangladesh and Myanmar with the proposal; Beijing later claimed both countries had accepted it. Under the plan, Myanmar and Bangladesh were to hold bilateral talks and reach a repatriation agreement – which has been achieved. However, the first step in Beijing’s approach – which involved a declaration of ceasefire in Rakhine to halt further displacement and bringing immediate relief to the state’s devastated Rohingya – has not taken effect. If this were to happen, the third part of the proposal will presumably take effect, with China providing economic assistance for the development of the Rakhine region as part of a long-term solution.
•China, which has historically been wary of stepping into domestic conflicts in other countries, is being proactive in this case. Its own interest is at stake. Beijing enjoys good relations with both Bangladesh and Myanmar; also, Rakhine is an important link in its Belt and Road Initiative. China is building a $7.3 billion deep-water port in the province and has invested $2.45 billion to build an oil and gas pipeline connecting coastal Rakhine to Yunnan. China has put pressure on Myanmar because a protracted conflict in Rakhine will be decidedly against Beijing’s economic interests. The signing of a repatriation deal suggests this pressure tactic is working. But details of the agreement, including the number of Rohingya who will be sent back, and the timeline, have not been revealed. It is also not clear whether the refugees themselves want to go back to a place they had fled in such perilous circumstances. Or in the event they do, where they will be resettled. From the details of the plan it is clear that China sees the Rohingya crisis as an economic problem, given that its solution is centred on development. While economic assistance is essential, the real problem is arguably deeply political, and there needs to be an accompanying political solution. Any proposal can only make limited headway unless Myanmar is willing to roll back the institutional barriers that render Rohingya second-class people. Unless they are accepted as equal citizens, there is unlikely to be a long-term solution to the Rakhine unrest.
📰 The mandates of natural justice
Questions for the judiciary on the anniversary of India’s adoption of its Constitution
•It was on November 26, 68 years ago, that the chairperson of the Constitution drafting committee, B.R. Ambedkar, put to vote the following motion at the Constituent Assembly: “That the Constitution as settled by the Assembly be passed.” The motion, as the minutes of the day’s meeting recorded, was adopted amidst “prolonged cheers.” In the ensuing decades, though, the day was scarcely recognised as forming an occasion of any particular note. But, in 1969, the Supreme Court Bar Association declared November 26 as Law Day, “a red-letter day,” in the words of the association’s then president, L.M. Singhvi, which the government has now designated as Constitution Day. But call the day what we might, Singhvi’s intention in declaring it as an occasion for annual observance is certainly worthy of paying heed to.
•“Our purpose in designating 26th November as Law Day,” said Singhvi, in his inaugural address, “is to emphasise the role and importance of law in the life of our Republic, to review the state of law and administration of justice, to suggest ways and means of improving our laws and our legal and judicial system, to establish better and more meaningful equations between the Bench and the Bar, to strengthen the principle of the independence of the judiciary… and to maintain, reinforce and augment public confidence in our legal and judicial system.”
A necessary appraisal
•Were we to today conduct an introspection of the kind that Singhvi thought necessary, what might our appraisal be? This question attains particular salience given recent events in the Supreme Court, which have not only sounded a national alarm, but have also threatened the confidence that the public might repose in the judiciary. The court’s collective actions, in undermining every notion of good ethical conduct, has struck a potentially irredeemable blow at the principles highlighted by Singhvi in his speech, each of which goes to the root of the constitutional morality that Ambedkar held so dear.
•The firestorm in this case was triggered by a first information report in which a retired Orissa High Court judge, I.M. Quddusi, was implicated for allegedly taking bribes to secure favourable orders from the Supreme Court. As it happened, these matters which Justice Quddusi is alleged to have claimed he could fix were heard by a bench presided by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). These claims supposedly made by Justice Quddusi might well be humbug. But how are we to know their veracity unless a reasonable investigation is conducted? This precisely was the question that a pair of petitions filed respectively by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and the advocate Kamini Jaiswal raised. Given that any involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation could impinge the autonomy of the judiciary, the petitions suggested that the court might consider appointing a special investigation team to conduct an inquiry into the FIR, under the supervision of a retired CJI, independent of all executive interference.
•When the original petition was filed by the CJAR, it might have been reasonable to expect the CJI to recuse himself altogether from the matter, including from any involvement as the master of the roster, as the person responsible for both determining which judges hear a case and when they do so. But his failure to do so prompted the filing of a second petition, this time by Ms. Jaiswal. With a view to avoiding any intervention by the CJI, this case was separately mentioned before a bench presided by the court’s second most senior judge, Justice J. Chelameswar, who ordered that the petition be heard by a bench comprising the five most senior judges of the court. This, however, led to a series of other consequences, with the controversy spiralling into successive episodes of unseemliness, each apparently more damaging than the previous. Ultimately, the CJI not only set aside Justice Chelameswar’s order, by constituting a five-judge bench of his own, over which he himself presided, but he also thereby reaffirmed his power and authority to make administrative choices.
Justice seen to be done?
•If we were to view the controversy rationally, the entire issue ought to boil down to these questions: under what circumstances does a litigant’s claim in court translate into a claim that interests a judge? Does the CJI ever have a duty to recuse himself as the “master of the roster”? To determine these questions, the court has no explicitly binding rules to apply; it’s guided partly by precedent, but mostly by discretion. In ordinary circumstances, this discretion would be governed by the general principle expressed by Lord Chief Justice Hewart of the King’s Bench nearly 100 years ago: that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
•But, on November 14, when a three-judge bench constituted by the CJI, which included a judge who had originally heard the cases that Justice Quddusi claimed he could influence, conducted a hearing, it barely considered the basic tenets of this principle. Instead, it dismissed Ms. Jaiswal’s petition, as an attempt at “bringing disrepute” to the court. What’s more, the bench also held that the petitioner’s request for a recusal by one of the judges hearing the case amounted virtually to a contempt of the court.
The Gajendragadkar way
•Here, it may have been instructive for the court to hark back to an incident from August 1964, when a group of intervenors represented by the lawyer Purushottam Trikamdas — a ‘tiger’ at the bar, by Fali Nariman’s reckoning — made what was at the time an odd request to a bench presided by the CJI, P.B. Gajendragadkar, which was hearing a case concerning the validity of a Bombay land acquisition law. Gajendragadkar, they argued, should not hear the case, since its outcome would affect a cooperative housing society of which he was a member.
•As Mr. Nariman recounted in his memoir, “Before Memory Fades,” Gajendragadkar eventually agreed to recuse himself from the case, but he nonetheless expressed an intention to hear a similar dispute that emanated from Madras, where he himself had no personal interest. It was then that the Attorney General, C.K. Daphtary, who was appearing for the Union of India, stood up to point out to the judge that it wouldn’t be ethical for him to hear either of the cases, given that any decision in the Madras case would have likely bound the court later when it heard the challenge to the Bombay law.
•The next day the bench was promptly reconstituted, with Justice K. Subba Rao presiding. As Mr. Nariman pointed out, there could be little doubt, not then, and not today, and certainly never in Daphtary’s mind, that had Gajendragadkar heard the cases, Dapthary’s client, the government, would have succeeded. But, as it happened, the two cases — N.B. Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector and Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector — were both decided against the state. In H.M. Seervai’s words, the Chief Justice, in recusing himself, had thus “affirmed in India the principle, well settled in England, that the requirements of natural justice apply to the most exalted judicial officer as they do the humblest.”
•Now, Gajendragadkar’s recusal still leaves certain questions unanswered. In particular, it doesn’t tell us much about the CJI’s role as the master of the roster. But, were we to place the Chief Justice’s position as an administrative head above ordinary mandates of natural justice, we would be violating the basic constitutional morality that holds together the entire structure of our Constitution, the idea that we are a country governed by the rule of law.
